[nickik]

Its simply false that market freedom always leads to consolidation. There is a very complex interplay between transaction cost, information problems, scaling economics and so on. You are just throwing out populist phrases because they sound good.

The solution is not to declare some kind of neo-progressive trust busting but locking at individual industries and figuring out why they are consolidating and if it will be bad.

In this case Disney can only do what they do because massive help from government protecting their intellectual property. Intellectual property, both patent and copyright, need reform. This is the relevant practical problem here.

[hypersoar]

So, I'm curious: why not engage in some neo-progressive trust busting?

[nickik]

Because the whole point of a market is that it acts as a process to discover the most efficient way to do something in a complex system.

Every individual market has huge amounts of complexity by itself and competes for the same resources as many other market creating huge amounts of complex dependencies.

If in these system a particular structure emerges, there is reason to think that it is actually pretty efficient compared to most alternatives.

Just willingly going around trust-busting because 'cooperation are evil' or some other popular phrase is a terrible idea most of the time it will hurt more then it does good.

If you want to do something useful make sure the citizens have rights and that there is a good legal system to arbitrate the interaction of people, companies, non-profits, clubs and so on.

Real change happens because a change in the rules of the system, not in a temporary heroic political trust-busting campaign to score political points.

[bovermyer]

I'm oversimplifying, but I'm not "throwing out populist phrases because they sound good."

Be careful not to conflate your reaction and my intention.

I agree that intellectual property needs reform, but that's a separate issue.

[nickik]

No. Intellectual property is the real issue here because this is what allows Disney to do these things.

Whatever your intention you used a populist argument that anti-market people have used for 100s of years, and given that there huge numbers of companies still in existence that argument should have been disqualified by now.

Just stopping a merger does not change the underlying structure and will accomplish little.

[bovermyer]

I honestly don't care if Disney owns all of media or not. What the market does is little of my concern as long as it doesn't conflict with my own interests.

I assume you're a strong proponent of laissez-faire, then?